Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but if you pay for a mission critical service and never bother testing it, you've pretty much passively decided to fail.
Joining the chorus of other people saying "WRONG". Reason 1: I pay for my bank account one way or another. It's bank's responsibility to keep the system running and secure, not mine. Sometimes we just can't do everything ourselves and have to rely on others. Reason 2: Many of us host something somewhere. How many do backups? How many of us check the backups? How many do check the backups checking process? (enter infi…
Sure, it should be the bank's responsibility to keep accounts safe. However, the fact that bank accounts are considered to be "safe" is in a large part due to systemic factors like the existence of the Fed (as lender of the last resort), FDIC, general political climate of "too big too fail", etc. As mentioned above, banks actually do go under a lot; it's just not as noticeable to the clients as before [the central banks], but the cost is there. (And there's a whole discourse there of whether it's a good idea for monetary system to have this kind of environment in the long run.)
In any case, nothing of the sort applies to the hosting providers (or even can be applied, as insuring unique data is not the same as insuring amounts of money) -- so assuming that keeping data there is as safe as keeping money in the bank is not a viable comparison.